The ‘culture of life’ runs into the ‘culture of politics’

March 8, 2006

About a week ago, when South Dakota’s sweeping new ban on abortion was working its way through the state legislature, a reporter asked Scott McClellan for the White House reaction to the effort. McClellan dodged, saying only that Bush “believes we ought to be working to build a culture of life in America.”

Now that the bill has been signed, and the controversy has generated national attention, the White House press corps returned to the subject again yesterday. For some reason, McClellan seemed a little shy about the whole thing.

McClellan: The state law, as you know, bans abortions in all instances with the exception of the life of the mother.

Q: And not rape and incest. And so, therefore, he must disagree with it, doesn’t he? Doesn’t he, Scott?

McClellan: The president has a strong record of working to build a culture of life, and that’s what he will continue to do.

Q: I know, but you’re not answering my question. You’re dodging it.

McClellan: No, I’m telling you that it’s a state law.

Q: Is he opposed to abortion laws that forbid it for rape and incest; isn’t that true, Scott? That’s what you said.

McClellan: Let me respond. Look at the president’s record when it comes to defending the sanctity of life. It is a very strong record.

As dodges go, this one is at least coherent. McClellan would love to talk about the South Dakota measure, but he doesn’t talk about state laws. Except, as Nico discovered, McClellan is willing to comment on state laws, but only when it’s politically convenient for him to do so.

The South Dakota abortion ban offers the White House an opportunity to state the president’s position clearly. McClellan wants no part of this opportunity. It’s a subtle admission that the S.D. law is a bigger political problem for the GOP than the party is generally willing to admit.

In fact, in the case of yesterday’s briefing, the context is even more important. The question wasn’t coming from a neutral reporter; the exchange came by way of Les Kinsolving, an embarrassingly right-wing radio host in Baltimore, who, just a day before, asked McClellan if Bush watched “any of the Academy Awards for prostitution and sodomy.”

I mention this because Kinsolving, like most far-right Bush supporters, wants to hear the White House express its support for the South Dakota abortion ban. Bush opposes abortion rights? He wants a “culture of life”? Well, here’s his chance to say so.

Except he won’t. Groups like Focus on the Family are hailing the South Dakota law as an important political milestone, but their ally in the White House doesn’t want to talk about it. Note to James Dobson: why don’t you urge the president to take a firm stand on one side or the other?

It occurred to me that the SD ban may be a political ploy set up to fail to keep the right wing base energized against “activist judges”.

  • The Bush administration has proven itself quite adept at letting others carry their water for them, and there seem to be no shortage of others more than willing to oblige. Now that Bush has altered the balance on the Supreme Court, the abortion issue and many other items on the conservative agenda can be championed by others without Bush lifting a finger — or being accountable. It’s quite brilliant, actually.

  • I think most Americans assume that the right to an abortion is here to stay, that it couldn’t be taken away. So the more I think about the SD ban the more I am pleased that it is happening. I hope all those other states pass abortion bans too, hopefully at least one or two with no exceptions whatsoever.

    An actual attempt to ban abortion and overturn Roe forces everyone to stop talking in hypotheticals. The GOP won’t be able to get away with all of their “culture of life” rhetoric. The GOP Christian pro-lifers are going to expect the GOP leadership to take a stand and strongly support SD’s ban. Something that we know they don’t really want to do. They might need a lot of their voters to be single-issue, but they know they’re on the losing side if suddenly everyone else is too.

  • So here we have the Theocrat Right demanding Bush support a law forcing women to bear the bastard spawn of their rapists while at the same time we have the Small Government Right denouncing Bush and all his works.

    And this guy still gets 38% in the polls?

  • Here’s a question to ask the married right-winger males who support the ban on abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. “If your wife were raped and became pregnant, would you insist that your wife carry that baby to term? And how would you feel about raising a child that wasn’t yours, but was the child of a rapist?”

    Let’s see how they would answer THAT question if they are so gung-ho on the right to life issue.

  • “And how would you feel about raising a child that wasn’t yours, but was the child of a rapist?” – LynChi

    And are you going to put him/her into your will with an equal share of the estate?

  • Why is it that “sanctity of life” does not extend to quality of life issues like education, food, health care, economics?
    If life is really sacred to these guys, then they would treat living people with reverence throughout their entire lifetimes, and really care about what happens to them… not just attempting to stop the prevention birth at the beginning of life and the invitation of death at the end of life.
    It feels more like puritan cult of suffering.. that none may avoid the God Given painful fruits of their actions, and the example of suffering sinners (degenerate winos and pregnant jezebells} will serve to instruct us to follow a righteous path. The thought that Bush has a sense of sanctity for anything besides money and power is absurd.

  • Bravo LynChi for the astute comment (and Ed for picking it up).

    CB, remember when you asked us how to improve the site? I have been thinking that a primary source of interest and potential influence is the WH press corps., and LynChi’s comment would be a perfect question to pose to Scotty, or any hardline-pro lifer Repub for that matter. Remember Dukakis?

    What if we had some kind of running section regarding proposed lines of questioning?

    What we see happening now is the WH crew asks a tough question, gets a BS response from Scotty, then the bloggers dig up evidence that Scotty was full of it/disingenuous, and we all complain (hence the Nico link above). What doesn’t happen is that, tomorrow, a WH presser comes back with specific examples showing that Scotty does comment on state law, etc.

    The setup could be by topic, with rolling comments and ideas that recycle every couple days/week. I know CB and Ed have some contacts, as do others, so letting key WH pressers know that there are committed individuals out there fact-checking and digging up great questions is actually a possibility. I’d love to see something we thought up end up making a liar look like a liar, and on TV at that. Just a thought.

  • “The GOP Christian pro-lifers are going to expect the GOP leadership to take a stand and strongly support SD’s ban. Something that we know they don’t really want to do.” ”

    Your half-right. The GOP Christian pro-lifers *do* expect the GOP leadership to take a stand and strongly support SD’s ban, but Gov. Mike Rounds (R-SD) *IS* GOP leadership and he *does* strongly supports SD’s ban.

    • Comments are closed.